Gary Burns is apparently suing me for a recent article I wrote that highlighted the paedophilic links in the title of a South Australian homosexual magazine, Blaze, and for suggesting that it’s not appropriate that children attend the Mardi Gras. It also made some comments about the unfortunate side-effects of Gary’s campaign to target politicians who express concerns about paedophiles using anti-discrimination laws to gain rights and privileges.
He issued a press release on Sunday, alerting the world to his intentions.
Getting sued doesn’t sound like much fun. However, if Mr Burns is going to give me the opportunity to highlight in a court that children, under the watchful gaze of the homosexual community, were exposed to lewd, sexually-explicit behaviour at the Mardi Gras, then I’ll thank him and do just that.
I’d also enjoy the prospect of a legal discussion about the perceptions that flow from the fact that a sexually-explicit homosexual publication uses a title that a Royal Commission found to stand for ‘Boy Lovers and Zucchini Eaters’.
In his statement, Gary also suggested that I might like to round up the homosexual community and tattoo them with a pink swastika. If anything, that suggestion is an incitement of hatred or serious contempt against homosexuals living in New South Wales. As Gary knows full well, it is an offence to do just that under New South Wales anti-discrimination laws. Regardless, it’s a strange comment from a guy who supposedly looks out for the interests of homosexuals everywhere across this sunburnt land. He’s accusing me of inciting hatred while issuing fairly hateful suggestions himself. So I’ll refer him instead to the local Islamic community. They can probably explain to him better than I how his suggestion will work a treat with the Gulf Arab States who are planning on medically testing all visitors to detect ‘gay’. A pink swastika will greatly assist that process, I’m sure.
For my part, I’ll just reiterate what I said previously. Not all homosexuals are paedophiles. Nor do all support the exposure of children to sexually-explicit activities. But, just like heterosexuals, some of them do. What that percentage is I don’t know. But I imagine it would be a fairly useful statistic for those interested in stamping out child sexual abuse to have. Especially considering that under age males account for about 30 per cent of victims of child sexual abuse while only about 3 per cent of the male population is homosexual. For those who don’t get my drift, homosexual means a bloke who engages in sexual activity with other males. One of these figures does not match the other. It might be a good idea to find out why.
But enough of the boring facts and statistics. Back to the problem at hand. Gary doesn’t like child sexual abuse and neither do I. So instead of battling it out in court about who dislikes it more, I have a better idea.
I’m inviting Mr Burns to join me in a campaign to highlight the dangers associated with exposing children to lewd and sexually-explicit activity, including at the Mardi Gras. I’m asking him to constructively help rid unwanted perceptions of child sexual innuendo in the homosexual community.
While I’d like to see the Mardi Gras banished, I guess Mr Burns has other ideas. To that end, perhaps Mr Burns would agree to being the ‘homosexual’ face of a public campaign to pressure the organisers of the Mardi Gras to keep it clean if they are going to encourage children to attend. And by keep it clean, I mean get rid of the sexual references, leather g-strings, nudity, groping and advertisement of organisations that proudly claim to be sexual ‘perverts’. And if they’re not going to do this, Mr Burns could suggest they make it clear that the kiddies are not invited in 2014. He could also publicly hint to the publishers of Blaze that it might be a good PR move to change its name to any other title that is not linked with paedophilia.
And that’s just the start. I’d also be more than happy to work with Mr Burns to ensure that outdoor advertising is ‘G’ rated and that television shows with sexual content are not shown at all hours of the day, as is currently proposed, or even at all.
But if Gary’s not prepared to do this, I guess I’ll look forward to seeing him in court. I might even ask why people like him would rather sue people like me for highlighting the exposure of children to sexually-explicit activity at homosexual events than actually doing anything to prevent it.
My views on sodomy, and the opinions expressed in the aforementioned commentary, are based on the religious truth that the homosexual orientation is intrinsically disordered. The scientific and academic aspects of my article (including the overrepresentation of young boys in child abuse statistics) is put forward in good faith as part of the wider discussion and debate currently taking place nationally on the issue of child abuse.
References:
January 16, 2015
Had no idea that Austraia outlawed free speech until I saw a Facebook post about the illiterate censor Garry (sic) Burns and Australia’s NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, a censorship law and violation of man’s God-given right to free speech – a law that would be unconstitutional in America. I’d thought all WASPs who governed themselves cherished and protected their British liberties and understood the necessity of speaking truth to power and the danger of blasphemy laws and censorship. What perverse cabal of ant-Christian bigots pushed this totalitarian censorship through? Homosexuals, Jewish supremacists who seek to criminalize holocaust denial yet deny the holocaust that Jewish Bolsheviks committed against Slavic Christians during the Bolshevik Revolution? Canada, new zealand, and the UK itself also punish speech. It’s the stark difference between the freedom-hating tyrannical Left that rules Commonwealth subjects of the Queen who don’t vote for their head of state and free citizens.
January 17, 2015
Reggie, Reggie,
I reckon you’re a Jewish plant, pretending to be one of us. What’s your real name?
October 23, 2013
I’m sure Bernard appreciates the gratutious advice, Jim. However, Burns doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
There is a connection between homosexuality and paedophilia and it’s acknowledged by Australia’s National Crime Authority and various other law enforcement agencies around the world.
We’ve all heard about paedophile priests. They’re called “paedophile” largely to distinguish them from homosexuals but it’s a false distinction because the vast majority are not clinical paedophiles but are in fact homosexual pederasts.
These offenders are classified as paedophiles under a socio-legal definition describing men who offend against minors under the age of consent.
Activists like Burns have been hoist on their own petard because under this definition homosexuals can and do participate in frequent paedophilie activity.
I wonder if Burns knows anyone who has put himself in that position? That would be a good question to put to him in court.
October 22, 2013
I take you’ll be engaging lawyers? By the sound of it you need them.
I think you need to be careful what you say in court. Courts are not forums for you to air your personal grievances or argue points of ecumenical dogma. They’re about arguing points of law. Judges don’t like respondents who show disrespect to the court.
If you want to win your case then stick to the law, not religious matters, otherwise you stand a damned good chance of losing and/or being locked up for contempt in the process.
October 26, 2013
Hi Jim – thanks for the concern. Yes, lawyers have been consulted. I am ready to fight if required.
October 22, 2013
Hi Bernard. —– You have nothing to worry about here. Mr Burns doesn’t have a leg to stand on and would be laughed out of court.
October 26, 2013
Hi Bruce – thanks for the comment and support.
October 22, 2013
Mr Burns needs to read this piece. ————————– http://steve-baldwin.com/articles/43-articles/184-child-molestation —————————- and this one ——————————– http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756